Warren Hits Back At Obama Over Trade Deal

UNITED STATES - APRIL 15: Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., speaks during the United Steelworkers rally in opposition to the proposed 'Fast Track' bill, or Trade Promotion Authority, in UpperSenate Park on Wednesday, A... UNITED STATES - APRIL 15: Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., speaks during the United Steelworkers rally in opposition to the proposed 'Fast Track' bill, or Trade Promotion Authority, in UpperSenate Park on Wednesday, April 15, 2015. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call) (CQ Roll Call via AP Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

After President Obama said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was “wrong” to oppose the trade deal the U.S. is negotiating with 11 Pacific countries, Warren hit back with a tweet and email to supporters on Wednesday questioning why the Obama administration won’t let the public see the the trade deal.

Warren has criticized the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), arguing that it could undermine financial regulations in the U.S.

On Tuesday, Obama defended the potential trade deal from Warren’s attacks.

“I love Elizabeth. We’re allies on a whole host of issues, but she’s wrong on this,” he said.

But Warren would not back down. On Wednesday, she sent an email to supporters calling out the Obama administration for keeping the TPP out of the public eye.

“The government doesn’t want you to read this massive new trade agreement. It’s top secret,” Warren wrote in the email. “Why? Here’s the real answer people have given me: ‘We can’t make this deal public because if the American people saw what was in it, they would be opposed to it.'”

The senator also criticized the administration for allegedly allowing corporations to view the trade deal, but not the American public.

“For more than two years now, giant corporations have had an enormous amount of access to see the parts of the deal that might affect them and to give their views as negotiations progressed. But the doors stayed locked for the regular people whose jobs are on the line,” Warren wrote. “We’ve all seen the tricks and traps that corporations hide in the fine print of contracts. We’ve all seen the provisions they slip into legislation to rig the game in their favor. Now just imagine what they have done working behind closed doors with TPP.”

Latest Livewire
286
Show Comments

Notable Replies

  1. “The government doesn’t want you to read this massive new trade agreement. It’s top secret,” Warren wrote in the email. “Why? Here’s the real answer people have given me: ‘We can’t make this deal public because if the American people saw what was in it, they would be opposed to it.’”

    This is really, incredibly dishonest. They haven’t reached a deal yet, that’s why we haven’t seen the deal. To claim we haven’t seen it because the administration is trying to hide it from us is the exact same shit Republicans are claiming with the Iran Nuke Deal.

    "We’ve all seen the tricks and traps that corporations hide in the fine print of contracts. We’ve all seen the provisions they slip into legislation to rig the game in their favor. Now just imagine what they have done working behind closed doors with TPP.

    No, I don’t need to imagine because the president has told us and he’s told you 17 freakin’ times. That’s why you’re asking me to imagine, because you ultimately know what you’re suggesting isn’t true.

  2. Two adults can disagree without it being an “attack” that one has to “hit back” over.

    When a statement begins with “I love Elizabeth Warren”, then it’s not an “attack”.

  3. Making the document available to the public doesn’t seem an unreasonable request…

  4. I hate it when Mom and Dad fight!

    I wish Warren hadn’t taken the political campaign tone in her e-mail. I get that she’s concerned about the TPP, and I believe that if she’s concerned then probably I should not be entirely sanguine about the not-yet-a-deal. But I agree with earlier commenters that this “hit back” mentality and “just imagine the HORRIBLE THINGS THEY MIGHT DO TO YOU” message is not warranted.

    I doubt Sen. Warren actually writes her own tweets; I wish she’d tell her staff to chill out a bit on the TPP. Make your point about transparency, but don’t turn it into a boogeyman like the GOP did the ACA. We’re the party of adults, let’s disagree and argue like adults.

    Edit to add: the left in general needs to be economic realists on the topic of free trade. We’re the side of fact-based analysis, right? Like capitalism, free trade - properly regulated - can be a net positive for the country. Also, we will not ever be able to save all jobs everywhere for all time. As industries mature and become commoditized, advanced countries like ours move on to newer, higher-tech, more profitable markets while the commodity industries move to where the cheaper labor is. This cannot be stopped (and it is, in the long run, a good thing) - it can only be managed, to ensure minimum hardship on the working population.

  5. The full text of the deal with be under public review for one month before any vote.

    WASHINGTON — Republican lawmakers and the White House have agreed to subject any trade deal negotiated by President Obama to a monthslong review by Congress and the public, a concession aimed at winning the support of Democrats who view trade agreements as a threat to American workers.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

280 more replies

Participants

Avatar for doremus_jessup Avatar for lestatdelc Avatar for jrbehrman Avatar for pluckyinky Avatar for al_fisher Avatar for littlegirlblue Avatar for meri Avatar for Valentinus Avatar for scottnatlanta Avatar for chammy Avatar for trippin Avatar for arrrrrj Avatar for nineo Avatar for bradbennett Avatar for eduardoinohio Avatar for chelsea530 Avatar for Beulahmo Avatar for boidster Avatar for darcy Avatar for josephp55 Avatar for seehowtheyrun Avatar for whateverdude Avatar for unabogie Avatar for towerofbable

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: